Obama is a citizen of kenya..with actual laws to back it up., page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times

Topic started on 15-7-2009 @ 10:41 AM by TheAmused

74.125.155.132...:tqBhDdcIJrIJ:www.reunite.org/edit/files/Islamic%2520Resource/Kenya%2520text.pdf+kenya+africa+child+born+outside+o f+kenya+to+father&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
or a pdf of the laws
www.reunite.org...

Nationality The requirements for the acquisition of citizenship are established in Chapter 6 of the Constitution. Article 89 states that everyone born in Kenya with at least one parent of Kenyan nationality will acquire Kenyan nationality. A person born outside Kenya will only obtain Kenyan citizenship if the father is a citizen of Kenya. According to Section 3 of the Law of Domicile, Chapter 37 of the Laws of Kenya, an illegitimate child will acquire the domicile of the mother, while a legitimate child will acquire the domicile of the father..

the last part is what cuts the cake so to speak.

A person born outside Kenya will only obtain Kenyan citizenship if the father is a citizen of Kenya.
That tell's us exactly why kenya stakes claim to obama..He is a citizen there.
His father was Kenyan.

According to Section 3 of the Law of Domicile, Chapter 37 of the Laws of Kenya, an illegitimate child will acquire the domicile of the mother, while a legitimate child will acquire the domicile of the father.

we all know he was already married when he married her.
which makes obama illegitimate ..thus why she had custody of him.

wiki.answers.com...

Answer #1 No.
The Constitution contains the term "natural born" for a US president. This term was used to prevent anyone with the possibility of having a foreign allegiance from becoming commander-in-chief of US forces, for obvious reasons (super fifth column, anyone?) A person with dual citizenship owes allegiance to both the US and the foreign government. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, which of course for a sitting US President would be disastrous to the US nation. The term "natural born" is used to mean a singular allegiance to one and only one nation. Dual citizenship contradicts this.

So there is no way by law he was not and perhaps still is not a citizen of kenya.

Let's say he renounced his kenya citizenship ...
It still isn't right.
He is not as it say's "Natural born".
As you can clearly see in Kenyan law.

I know it's another obama thread...
But at least i am showing you a law that tell's you 100% obama is or was a citizen of kenya.
If that is not a conspiracy i got no idea what in this world is...

[edit on 15-7-2009 by TheAmused]

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 10:48 AM by lpowell0627

I hope this thread attracts the attention it deserves.

My question is this:

You've proven that Obama is a citizen of Kenya only if Obama's father and mother were married at the time of his birth. Which I believe they were since she filed for divorce when Obama was a child, thus already born.

Now, for the question. If Obama had given up his Kenya citizenship, would the constitution allow for this?

In other words, your source states that dual citizenship is not allowed for fear of which country's allegiance would dominate.

Is Obama still a legal citizen of Kenya, or did he denounce (recall?) that citizenship?

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:00 AM by Histopherness

reply to post by TheAmused

Not sure where you get your definition, but not from the courts.

1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney General

our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

1857 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis

The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States

Other countries laws never supercede our own. If Hawaii says he is a citizen, then he is a citizen. If Hawaii says he was born there, that makes him a natural born citizen. Dual citizenship is not mentioned in the constitution and until the time the supreme courts decide that it is not constitutional, dual citizenship does not disqualify someone from being President.

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:06 AM by yeahright

The US really has no control over the laws of Kenya and how they qualify Kenyan citizenship. it has no bearing over a Constitutional question about Obama's qualification to be POTUS.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits dual citizenship for a POTUS.

I don't know of any child who has ever had control over his country of birth or citizenship prior to his reaching the age of majority.

I sure don't see a conspiracy here.

We've got threads by the tonnage about Obama's Constitutional qualification to be President. How is this different?

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:13 AM by Histopherness

reply to post by yeahright

This one is no different. People just like to talk. They think that as US citizens we have a right to challenge the presidents eligibility. Several United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens DO NOT having standing to challenge a candidate what makes them think they have anymore right to challenge him after he has won?

I can understand people being pissy, Obama has done a crap job so far, but pissy AND uneducated is a combo I just can't stand.

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:30 AM by A.M.L.

I believe all Jewish people can gain citizenship in Israel (confirmation of this?).

That fact wouldn't seem to disqualify Jewish people with duel citizenship with Israel and the United States from being the POTUS.

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:32 AM by Hastobemoretolife

reply to post by Histopherness

They think that as US citizens we have a right to challenge the presidents eligibility.

Statements like these # me off more than anything.

We are not servants to the government the Government is a servant to us. When the decision came down that US citizens have no standing to challenge the authority of the president, that is the most unconstitutional thing ever.

In the first Amendment, we have a RIGHT to file a redress to congress about anything.

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:38 AM by TheAmused

reply to post by yeahright

because it still say's this in the law book's is why this thread is different.
en.wikipedia.org...

The U.S. Constitution was based upon the encyclopedic "The Law of Nations," (Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains) a treatise written in 1758 by Swiss lawyer and diplomat Emerich de Vattel as a manual for how government should function. Book I, Chapter XIX, part 212, codified the definition of "Natural born citizen" as jus soli jus sanguinus: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”[13]

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . . ” - John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866

Now remind me where was obama's father from?
read it closely..
of parents who are citizens
PARENT'S it's not plural....
So infact it was meant clearly to be both parent's are citizen's..not just one.

The key word in both is PARENTS of child...Not mother or father.

So yes this thread has more merit than most..
It's not just a rant to piss obamafanatic's off.
i assure ya.

and how can you a mod for a conspiracy site......
Say i don't see how this is a conspiracy make's me wonder.
just saying.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by TheAmused]

[edit on 15-7-2009 by TheAmused]

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:48 AM by Geladinhu

Who cares really?

It's funny how most Americans cannot accept the idea of having a president that comes from another place.

I like soccer better than politics. So I'll try to explain my view point based on soccer. What really matters is if the team plays well together, the coach can be from anywhere if it makes the team play well together.

After all, it is just a game even if a lot of people take it way too seriously.
It's not about winning against other teams (oh no, the coach comes from another place so it will screw up the team on purpose

) , it's about the challenge to break down the contrasts as to unite and at the same time have fun.

The coach is also a player, and all a player wants is to enjoy himself and have a good reputation (in order to enjoy himself even more).

Nationalists have to chill the f. out!

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Geladinhu]

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:48 AM by Histopherness

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I am just as upset as most about the statements I make. I don't like to think about it. But they are true none the less. I was brought up to believe we lived in a democracy. Imagine my surprise to find out we live in a Federal Republic. A federal constitutional republic to be specific.

WE don't get to vote on all our own laws, we have people represent us; again which we did not get to directly vote on to do so. That is the sad fact of the matter. You do not have the right in this country to challenge whatever you want. Congress can, and you have the right to ask your congressman to do something about it, doesn't mean he will.

I don't like this anymore then anyone else, but it is the country we live in. I am sure Chinese hate that they only have one legal party to vote from, but that is the country they live in.

So while the Government is supposed to serve us, at the moment it does not. If we the people don't like it, then maybe we should do something about it. Like run for office, vote for those that actually have our interest at heart, get involved in the running of this country instead of sitting back and arguing online all the reasons it sucks.

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:50 AM by Point of No Return

reply to post by yeahright

Does it matter if America recognizes Kenya law or not?

To them, he is potentially a legal citizen, so that leaves room for potential conflict of interest.

The question is, did Obama denounce his citizenship or not.

Cause if this is all true, and he didn't denounce it, doesn't it mean he has 2 nationalities?

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 11:56 AM by A.M.L.

Even if you don't think having a national for president is important, Obama better be a national.

In the event he isn't, we have a serious problem. Obama, elected under the assumption he was a national, can be subject to black mail if he isn't.

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 12:14 PM by lpowell0627

Originally posted by Geladinhu
Who cares really?

It's funny how most Americans cannot accept the idea of having a president that comes from another place.

Not accepting it and having the constitution forbid it are two very different things. The constitution is more than "people's feelings".

I like soccer better than politics. So I'll try to explain my view point based on soccer. What really matters is if the team plays well together, the coach can be from anywhere if it makes the team play well together.

After all, it is just a game even if a lot of people take it way too seriously.
It's not about winning against other teams (oh no, the coach comes from another place so it will screw up the team on purpose ) , it's about the challenge to break down the contrasts as to unite and at the same time have fun.

The coach is also a player, and all a player wants is to enjoy himself and have a good reputation (in order to enjoy himself even more).

Nationalists have to chill the f. out!

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Geladinhu]

No offense, but you're comparing our government to a soccer game?

I don't pay taxes for FUN!

This country is not based on "who cares if we win or lose as long as we have fun."

If that were the case, I'd quit the team because I am sure as heck not having any fun lately!!!

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 12:15 PM by yeahright

reply to post by Point of No Return

It's still not relevant to the point. Show me anything that Constitutionally prohibits a person with dual citizenship to be legally excluded from the office.

Maybe he has dual citizenship, maybe he doesn't. I can see why people would want to know that, but in the grand scheme of his eligibility, it's irrelevant. And in my opinion, only throws more obfuscation on the core issue.

What if some tiny country "bestows" citizenship on a candidate and in accordance with their laws, refuses to revoke it on request?

And back to my original question, what "conspiracy" are we addressing in this thread and how is it relevant?

Of all the potential "conflicts" I can see surrounding a president, this one is way down on my list. A president's actions could be potentially affected due to many things, regardless of any "official" recognition by a foreign country.

I'm way more concerned about potential corporate/organizational influence than I am about Kenya's potential influence. Kenya's 2008 GDP was $60 billion. That's way under what the government has tossed out in bailout money the last 6 months, which through April 30th were about 12 TRILLION in commitments.

Kenya is the least of my worries.

Obama's in office. He's not going anywhere. We'd be better served to pay attention to what they're doing now, than whether or not he may have been granted Kenyan citizenship way before he even knew what that meant. Which would still have no effect on his Constitutional eligibility to serve.

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 12:15 PM by Geladinhu

Again, who cares really?
The system is a big lie. Doesn't matter anymore if there are lies on top of lies. And if some lies are exposed other lies will come. I'm tired of being fooled around already and I think I'm not the only one.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Geladinhu]

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Geladinhu]

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 12:23 PM by Geladinhu

You pay taxes for what then? Security?

Tell me then, on what the hell is this country based on?
I'd guess FEAR.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Geladinhu]

[edit on 15-7-2009 by Geladinhu]

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 12:30 PM by davidifty

who cares where he is from or where he was born..im sick of reading this all the time.

post something useful for a change.

The united states doesn't even have its own language (no offence meant - just a point) so why does it matter if he was born in Kenya or on Mars?

If people voted him in then so beit.

Blair running for European Prime Minister is more worrying!

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 12:43 PM by Point of No Return

reply to post by yeahright

It's still not relevant to the point. Show me anything that Constitutionally prohibits a person with dual citizenship to be legally excluded from the office.

I got this from the OP, I don't know if it is good enough for ya.

Answer #1 No. The Constitution contains the term "natural born" for a US president. This term was used to prevent anyone with the possibility of having a foreign allegiance from becoming commander-in-chief of US forces, for obvious reasons (super fifth column, anyone?) A person with dual citizenship owes allegiance to both the US and the foreign government. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, which of course for a sitting US President would be disastrous to the US nation. The term "natural born" is used to mean a singular allegiance to one and only one nation. Dual citizenship contradicts this.

I'm way more concerned about potential corporate/organizational influence than I am about Kenya's potential influence. Kenya's 2008 GDP was $60 billion. That's way under what the government has tossed out in bailout money the last 6 months, which through April 30th were about 12 TRILLION in commitments.

It's not about Kenya. He lied, they lied. He was chosen under false assumptions.

Is it not a bit shortsighted to not see that the crazy bailouts, and the possible lies about his eligibility originate from the same source?

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 12:43 PM by yeahright

Originally posted by TheAmused
reply to post by yeahright

because it still say's this in the law book's is why this thread is different.
en.wikipedia.org...

So wikipedia is a law book now?

and how can you a mod for a conspiracy site......
Say i don't see how this is a conspiracy make's me wonder.
just saying.

Laugh all you want. I'm still wondering where the conspiracy is. Quoting Wikipedia which is citing a Swiss lawyer from 1758 and a Congressman's opinion from 1866 and calling it a law book isn't helping me.

reply posted on 15-7-2009 @ 12:52 PM by yeahright